What do you folks think of Robert Bly and the mythopoetic men's movement? I stumbled across this fellow and will be checking out some audiobooks of his ideas. I was just curious to see if I could get a wider perspective around these parts.

And, yeah, I realize there's always the relative truth to organizations like these....

Mythopoetic men's movementFrom Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The mythopoetic men's movement (sometimes mistakenly referred to simply as the men's movement) refers to a loose collection of organizations active in men's work since the early 1980s. The mythopoetic men's movement grew as a reaction to the second-wave feminist movement. The mythopoetic men's movement aims to liberate men from the constraints of the modern world which keep them from being in touch with their true masculine nature, and is best known for the rituals that take place during their gatherings. While in the public eye in the early 1990s, the movement carries on more quietly in The ManKind Project and independent psychologico-spiritual practitioners. Mythopoets adopted a general style of psychological self-help inspired by the work of Robert Bly, Robert A. Johnson, Joseph Campbell, and other Jungian authors.

The leaders of the mythopoetic men's movement believed that modernization had led to the feminization of men. Mythopoets believed that the rise of the urban industrial society "trapped men into straitjackets of rationality, thus blunting the powerful emotional communion and collective spiritual transcendence that they believe men in tribal societies typically enjoyed" (p. 20 Messner). Most importantly, the movement sought to restore the "deep masculine" to men who had lost it in their more modern lifestyles. Other causes for the loss of the "deep masculine" include:

Men no longer being comrades who celebrated their masculinity together. Rather, they had become competitors within their workplaces.

Men spending more time in their houses with women than they did with men (in non-competitive terms outside of work). Interaction with women generally kept men from realizing their internal masculinity.

Feminism bringing attention to the 'feminine voice.' Through this, the mythopoetic men felt that their voices had been muted (though Bly and others are careful in not blaming feminism for this).

The separation of men from their fathers kept them from being truly initiated into manhood, and was a source of emotional damage.

Men were suffering further emotional damage due to feminist accusations about sexism. Men should celebrate their differences from women, rather than feeling guilty about them.

Men being discouraged from expressing their emotions. Male inexpressivity is an epidemic and does not correspond to their "deep masculine" natures.

If you need "rituals" to know who you are, you've just put on another uniform. Which is kind of a shame, because it would seem to me that the guys who go in for this sort of thing probably do so because they've realized that they're wearing a uniform...But to deal with it, they go put on another uniform.

The flaw here is that whereas feminism seeks equality, the "deep masculine" thing is instead the guys worrying about their personalities...There is less immediate drive & purpose, so they wind up thumping on drums and pretending that it's changing their lives and making everything DIFFERENT.

Then they go back to work on Monday, and they're still powerless little drones who are intimidated by authority figures, women, and damn near everything else. Even if they really beat on those bongos.

Those are some good points, Roger. What makes me immediately skeptical is that it's a movement that seems to be occuring in reaction to another movement...feminism.

The points, however, seem to be somewhat valid.

I was raised more or less exclusively by my mother...who, with every best intention, did her very best but also didn't provide a good masculine role model a growing boy could aspire toward. It wasn't until I had children that I had to really find it myself.

Is this concept of a 'deep masculine' just another hype or is there something lacking in our society today that keeps men from really grabbing hold of it? Now, I'm not saying that on our fifteenth birthday we are to kill a lion and get a circumcision with a sharpened stone like the Maasai people in Kenya (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maasai_people#Social_organization) but there seems to be a real lack of a legitimate rite of passage for boys to become men these days.

Take, for example, this fellow Ryan I know. This guy, by all popular standards, most folks would think of as a "real man." Works out, tough...definitely the fellow you'd want to have your back. Once you get to know him, he seems to be nothing more than an immature boy trapped in a man's body who exhibits no traits of a healthy evolved masculine man as he portrays himself.

What I'm unsure of is are the points addressed by this movement legitimate? Is Ryan an example of say male inexpressibility?

It seems to me, as I search inside about what "being a man" means to me is nothing about what it's portrayed in our culture...there seems to be quite a disconnect here and I'm really not sure why.

The rituals, I guess, kind of make sense...but, I agree that it doesn't really seem to make quite an impact that something like killing a lion might. It seems very pretentious.

Considering gender roles are essentially social constructs, sounds like a lot of neo-pagan woowoo.

I posit that the reason you have a disconnect is because our culture has been dominated by a consumer based ethic that favors childish impulsive spending to fulfill immature superficial wants. Or in short, the emphasis of materialism over social and familial relationships.

IMHO in some ways the culture tries to keep people - all people - in the kid stage too long. "Don't have sex, don't drink, don't stay out late. Wait till you're 21." Nobody waits that long, so the kids tend to initiate themselves into the adult world and sometimes that means gangs, or something similarly borked. I don't think it's a matter of not growing up with a man in the house so much as being shut out of adulthood until years after you were ready.

It's all kind of polarized. I mean, as a female I was presented with the traditional stay-home-and-clean thing on the one hand and the "you can be a CEO/truck driver/whatever" thing on the other...one or the other, which side are you on? All that bullshit. I guess it's similar for guys? I thought it all sucked. :lol: And the reality these days is everybody has to make money, everybody has to scrub the toilet, so it's all moot anyway.

There might be something to it as far as everybody being spread too thin. But this ritual stuff IS total crap. I don't see a chubby lawyer in a loincloth beating a drum as doing anything to enhance his masculinity. :lol:

If you need "rituals" to know who you are, you've just put on another uniform. Which is kind of a shame, because it would seem to me that the guys who go in for this sort of thing probably do so because they've realized that they're wearing a uniform...But to deal with it, they go put on another uniform.

I'm not so sure wearing the uniform is so bad as long as you're consistently aware that it's only a uniform. Unless I have the wrong impression of what you mean by uniform.

In a society, at least traditionally, uniforms are important. The monkeys need to know where they are in the pack and traditionally ritual has been a key part of that process. In today's society, ritual has fallen by the wayside, myth (once a powerful teaching tool) is replaced by whatever advertisers can convince people to watch on TV and uniforms have been swapped out for a shirt, tie and cubicle. The issue I see with this kind of movement is its reactive nature and backwards goal. Society evolves and the rituals and myths should evolve with them. There's little value in rituals that transport people to who their grandparents were in a now dead society. The real value would be in rituals/myths that direct them toward the future, who they can be in today's society/culture.

In most societies, there are individuals that cast off the uniform and thats great for them. But the majority need some psychological handle to help them find their place. However, that place should be based on the here and now of their society, not the there and then of the past.

Quote

In every tribe only a few would wonder What's beyond that hill Who will go, fewer still you know

Now, I'm not saying that on our fifteenth birthday we are to kill a lion and get a circumcision with a sharpened stone like the Maasai people in Kenya (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maasai_people#Social_organization) but there seems to be a real lack of a legitimate rite of passage for boys to become men these days.

No argument there. This is why we have 28 year old drones clogging up the couches nationwide.

For me, it was when I went into the service. When I think back as to when I was a boy and when I was a man, it was a "ritual" that began when I entered basic training, and ended when I went to my unit.

Now, I'm not saying that on our fifteenth birthday we are to kill a lion and get a circumcision with a sharpened stone like the Maasai people in Kenya (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maasai_people#Social_organization) but there seems to be a real lack of a legitimate rite of passage for boys to become men these days.

No argument there. This is why we have 28 year old drones clogging up the couches nationwide.

For me, it was when I went into the service. When I think back as to when I was a boy and when I was a man, it was a "ritual" that began when I entered basic training, and ended when I went to my unit.

Another good argument for compelling some level of service from all citizens when they get out of school.

Now, I'm not saying that on our fifteenth birthday we are to kill a lion and get a circumcision with a sharpened stone like the Maasai people in Kenya (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maasai_people#Social_organization) but there seems to be a real lack of a legitimate rite of passage for boys to become men these days.

No argument there. This is why we have 28 year old drones clogging up the couches nationwide.

For me, it was when I went into the service. When I think back as to when I was a boy and when I was a man, it was a "ritual" that began when I entered basic training, and ended when I went to my unit.

Another good argument for compelling some level of service from all citizens when they get out of school.

I can't think of a single good reason for compelling service from anyone. Especially in the military.

In a society, at least traditionally, uniforms are important. The monkeys need to know where they are in the pack and traditionally ritual has been a key part of that process. In today's society, ritual has fallen by the wayside, myth (once a powerful teaching tool) is replaced by whatever advertisers can convince people to watch on TV and uniforms have been swapped out for a shirt, tie and cubicle.

I disagree. I can list any number of American myths that are stronger today than they ever were.

I meant service in some form, not necessarily guns and boots... but some service could easily act as a 'ritual' taking a person from youth to adult. I detest the idea of compulsory service, but in many countries it does seem to have a good effect.

I don't think "service" quite fits what the rituals intend to do. Regardless of how it appears, the rituals seem to have the initiate do something dangerous, risky, or arduous in a public or otherwise social setting, where upon completion the pack begins treating the initiate in a different way.

In today's society, that could be considered "getting your shit together and taking responsibility for something". The first time a kid faces something of real consequence, they either put up or shut up. The problem as I see it is twofold: 1) These days, it's really easy to avoid taking responsibility for something if no one forces you to; 2) We've forgotten how to frame it as a ritual, so these experiences have no context or deeper meaning.

I don't think "service" quite fits what the rituals intend to do. Regardless of how it appears, the rituals seem to have the initiate do something dangerous, risky, or arduous in a public or otherwise social setting, where upon completion the pack begins treating the initiate in a different way.

In today's society, that could be considered "getting your shit together and taking responsibility for something". The first time a kid faces something of real consequence, they either put up or shut up. The problem as I see it is twofold: 1) These days, it's really easy to avoid taking responsibility for something if no one forces you to; 2) We've forgotten how to frame it as a ritual, so these experiences have no context or deeper meaning.

I meant service in some form, not necessarily guns and boots... but some service could easily act as a 'ritual' taking a person from youth to adult. I detest the idea of compulsory service, but in many countries it does seem to have a good effect.

I am completely against any form of mandatory service, military or no, on account of "leave me the fuck alone".

When you say American Myths, what are you referring to?[/quote]

The American Dream™.Work hard, get rich.My party is the party of fiscal responsibility.We need to get tough on crime.The 1950s were a golden age that we should try to recapture.We're always saving the world from itself.If I don't step out of line, nothing bad will happen to me.Cops don't arrest innocent people.

I meant service in some form, not necessarily guns and boots... but some service could easily act as a 'ritual' taking a person from youth to adult. I detest the idea of compulsory service, but in many countries it does seem to have a good effect.

I am completely against any form of mandatory service, military or no, on account of "leave me the fuck alone".

When you say American Myths, what are you referring to?

The American Dream™.Work hard, get rich.My party is the party of fiscal responsibility.We need to get tough on crime.The 1950s were a golden age that we should try to recapture.We're always saving the world from itself.If I don't step out of line, nothing bad will happen to me.Cops don't arrest innocent people.

Shall I go on?[/quote]

Ah ah... that's a different sort of myth than I was referencing. I meant mythic stories (ala Joseph Campbell) that provide a model for people as they grow in their own experience of life. Many traditional societies had Hero stories, about some guy that is the everyman/fool/child who goes on a life changing experience, becoming the hero. In each individuals life, they take that same path, from the birth/child/fool position through taking the adventure that leads to being a grown/contributing member of society.

There are some stories that sorta cover this, Star Wars, obviously and also Avatar The Last Airbender as a more recent example... but these stories aren't a society wide tool, they're attempts by modern storytellers to recapture the old mythic concept. They still cling to the most classic model and don't really cover the modern cultural experience well enough IMO.

I would certainly welcome a re-realization of the sense of the Epic in people's lives. I don't think this necessarily needs rituals, but I don't see the problem with using rituals to instill/generate it.

I would certainly welcome a re-realization of the sense of the Epic in people's lives. I don't think this necessarily needs rituals, but I don't see the problem with using rituals to instill/generate it.

There's still a few. The military, like Dok mentioned. Or the less-acceptable getting rolled into a gang, like I mentioned. In a lesser sense, becoming self-supporting and getting your own place.

Ah ah... that's a different sort of myth than I was referencing. I meant mythic stories (ala Joseph Campbell) that provide a model for people as they grow in their own experience of life. Many traditional societies had Hero stories, about some guy that is the everyman/fool/child who goes on a life changing experience, becoming the hero. In each individuals life, they take that same path, from the birth/child/fool position through taking the adventure that leads to being a grown/contributing member of society.

There are some stories that sorta cover this, Star Wars, obviously and also Avatar The Last Airbender as a more recent example... but these stories aren't a society wide tool, they're attempts by modern storytellers to recapture the old mythic concept. They still cling to the most classic model and don't really cover the modern cultural experience well enough IMO.

Balls. The American myth cycle is based originally on the Astors and the Morgans. It is the get rich myth, and it has existed longer in America than America has (politically) existed. The streets are paved with gold, eh? This is an incredibly enduring mythology, and has actually gotten far stronger as time goes on.

I would certainly welcome a re-realization of the sense of the Epic in people's lives. I don't think this necessarily needs rituals, but I don't see the problem with using rituals to instill/generate it.

You can't force the sense of epic, or you have current American television/movie rot.

It doesn't fucking work. You have either "Audy Murphy" or "Buzz Aldrin", or you have crap like "the last airbender" and various Michael Bay flicks. Hell, even Rambo was more comedy relief than anything else.

Ah ah... that's a different sort of myth than I was referencing. I meant mythic stories (ala Joseph Campbell) that provide a model for people as they grow in their own experience of life. Many traditional societies had Hero stories, about some guy that is the everyman/fool/child who goes on a life changing experience, becoming the hero. In each individuals life, they take that same path, from the birth/child/fool position through taking the adventure that leads to being a grown/contributing member of society.

There are some stories that sorta cover this, Star Wars, obviously and also Avatar The Last Airbender as a more recent example... but these stories aren't a society wide tool, they're attempts by modern storytellers to recapture the old mythic concept. They still cling to the most classic model and don't really cover the modern cultural experience well enough IMO.

Balls. The American myth cycle is based originally on the Astors and the Morgans. It is the get rich myth, and it has existed longer in America than America has (politically) existed. The streets are paved with gold, eh? This is an incredibly enduring mythology, and has actually gotten far stronger as time goes on.

This goes a long way towards explaining why people get all pious and reverent over Steve Jobs. :x

I would certainly welcome a re-realization of the sense of the Epic in people's lives. I don't think this necessarily needs rituals, but I don't see the problem with using rituals to instill/generate it.

You can't force the sense of epic, or you have current American television/movie rot.

It doesn't fucking work. You have either "Audy Murphy" or "Buzz Aldrin", or you have crap like "the last airbender" and various Michael Bay flicks. Hell, even Rambo was more comedy relief than anything else.

I see what you're saying. I guess I was thinking more of activities coming FROM a sense of Epic, which help to sustain that sense of Epic. In other words, activites generated by individuals as part of the creative process of their lives, not by some kind of cultural authority or outside influence (which I agree would be fucked up).

I would certainly welcome a re-realization of the sense of the Epic in people's lives. I don't think this necessarily needs rituals, but I don't see the problem with using rituals to instill/generate it.

You can't force the sense of epic, or you have current American television/movie rot.

It doesn't fucking work. You have either "Audy Murphy" or "Buzz Aldrin", or you have crap like "the last airbender" and various Michael Bay flicks. Hell, even Rambo was more comedy relief than anything else.

I see what you're saying. I guess I was thinking more of activities coming FROM a sense of Epic, which help to sustain that sense of Epic. In other words, activites generated by individuals as part of the creative process of their lives, not by some kind of cultural authority or outside influence (which I agree would be fucked up).

Also, you're shooting too high, for the general population. Most people - Hell, almost all people - have no epic in them. That's what makes epic people epic, right? The bulk of humanity's job is to stand on the curb and clap when the epic people go by. For every hero, there's 100,000 people that just want to get through their lives.

One thing that stands out in my mind is how rights of passages like the military and gangs seem to be rooted in aggression and violence. That's not to say that having a good sense of strength and responsibility that comes with these groups...(maybe not so much responsibility with the later...) isn't a necessary quality that comes with manhood. I just wonder if using that model is really what men need. I'm really not sure--it's just that something kind of seems off with that.

Wait, actually TGRR, there's a little bit of a miscommunication here. I'm not talking about heroes, I'm talking about an approach to living/a kind of experience.Even "just getting through your life" can be epic, with the right lenses. And I don't think that's a delusion.Of course, once a person sees the epic, the chances that they'll continue to be a submissive clone are slim to none.

One thing that stands out in my mind is how rights of passages like the military and gangs seem to be rooted in aggression and violence. That's not to say that having a good sense of strength and responsibility that comes with these groups...(maybe not so much responsibility with the later...) isn't a necessary quality that comes with manhood. I just wonder if using that model is really what men need. I'm really not sure--it's just that something kind of seems off with that.

Eh, most of the rights of passage in the military that I have experienced are not rooted in violence. In fact the only one that was rooted in violence was the final day of combative training.

Maybe I'm biased because of Campbell... but everyone has an epic existence, in some sense.

Not everyone will be Hercules or Parsifal, but everyone does go on the journey from Fool to Hero in their own life. The process of being born is an epic journey, from a bunch of cells floating in a womb to a living screaming external entity. The trip from infant, who must be completely cared for by an external source to the adolescent becoming self-responsible and self-directed. The trip from Youth to Adult, is another instance of the epic journey. From the first job of "Do you want fries with that?" to finding the job that fulfills you... its all epic within the experience of the individual.

According to Campbell its these epic journeys that the traditional hero myths are designed to direct.That's why many cultures have rituals related to these points in life. Its the process by which the society brings the individual into the next stage. Without it, as you pointed out earlier, you end up with twenty-somethings on the parents couch.

There are plenty of American myths (lies) but not much in the way of mythic stories or cultural rituals.

One thing that stands out in my mind is how rights of passages like the military and gangs seem to be rooted in aggression and violence. That's not to say that having a good sense of strength and responsibility that comes with these groups...(maybe not so much responsibility with the later...) isn't a necessary quality that comes with manhood. I just wonder if using that model is really what men need. I'm really not sure--it's just that something kind of seems off with that.

First, Bly's understanding of what it is to be a "man" seems... clumsy. Rigid. And very "Occidental". Do we even see the same "problem" he sees? Are men becoming weaker, or are they moving away from a social norm that could be rooted in primal behavior may not in itself be beneficial to bipeds?

One thing that stands out in my mind is how rights of passages like the military and gangs seem to be rooted in aggression and violence. That's not to say that having a good sense of strength and responsibility that comes with these groups...(maybe not so much responsibility with the later...) isn't a necessary quality that comes with manhood. I just wonder if using that model is really what men need. I'm really not sure--it's just that something kind of seems off with that.

Eh, most of the rights of passage in the military that I have experienced are not rooted in violence. In fact the only one that was rooted in violence was the final day of combative training.

Most of it was "take care of my shit", which in fact IS pretty epic, when the predominant cultural more is "someone take care of my shit".

First, Bly's understanding of what it is to be a "man" seems... clumsy. Rigid. And very "Occidental". Do we even see the same "problem" he sees? Are men becoming weaker, or are they moving away from a social norm that could be rooted in primal behavior may not in itself be beneficial to bipeds?

This is a very good point. He's still looking at what men "were"... not what men are.

However, there isn't much direction, even from culture about what men 'are'. We have so many competing concepts, most of which seem incompatible. Are men tough and macho, are they thoughtful, feeling and in touch with their 'feminine side'? Is being a man about making money, or 'making a difference'?

Once upon a time, these questions were simple, so the biped could figure out what they were supposed to be doing. Today, most people don't need to be hunters or warriors. They don't even need to be laborers which is what many from the last few generations identified with. Even for the hunters, warriors and laborers, the work is simplified by technology. No one is hunting a bear with a spear, knowing that failure means the neighborhood won't eat. No one is looking across the field at an enemy, knowing that they'll be coming to physical blows and many of their companions won't be coming back. Even the labor is now more about pushing buttons, than hauling heavy loads, or descending into a deep mine, where your life (and the welfare of your family) is constantly on the line.

Dok, I take your point on rituals and myths... I think there are some American myths Washington, Johnny Appleseed etc. and we do have some rituals, as you mentioned. However, these aren't the mythic sort... they aren't the kind that guide the individual on their own journey.

Maybe birthdays, graduation and weddings count... but those have mostly turned into excuses for parties rather than any kind of serious idea of change.

One thing that stands out in my mind is how rights of passages like the military and gangs seem to be rooted in aggression and violence. That's not to say that having a good sense of strength and responsibility that comes with these groups...(maybe not so much responsibility with the later...) isn't a necessary quality that comes with manhood. I just wonder if using that model is really what men need. I'm really not sure--it's just that something kind of seems off with that.

Campbell used to bemoan the unisex culture a lot. Not LGBT or any of that, but identical roles for everybody. He said things like "the male body is built for combat" and "the function of the male is to secure and maintain a field for the female to bring forth the future". I don't think he literally meant that everybody nowadays needs to run around clubbing people over the head, more the fact that we have the same basic wiring as people did a long time ago and it doesn't have an outlet. The outlet could be athletics or something, he seemed to be saying that some things need to be available that are "just for guys" and some "just for women".

One thing that stands out in my mind is how rights of passages like the military and gangs seem to be rooted in aggression and violence. That's not to say that having a good sense of strength and responsibility that comes with these groups...(maybe not so much responsibility with the later...) isn't a necessary quality that comes with manhood. I just wonder if using that model is really what men need. I'm really not sure--it's just that something kind of seems off with that.

Eh, most of the rights of passage in the military that I have experienced are not rooted in violence. In fact the only one that was rooted in violence was the final day of combative training.

Dok, I take your point on rituals and myths... I think there are some American myths Washington, Johnny Appleseed etc. and we do have some rituals, as you mentioned. However, these aren't the mythic sort... they aren't the kind that guide the individual on their own journey.

Sure they are. You're expecting them to look like myths from the classical era and the middle ages, and you're expecting rituals to look like something out of RAW or Campbell.

But they don't. They look like everyday shit, the usual business of crawling from the cradle to the grave, and the fact that they happen every day sort of makes them invisible...If you're expecting something like Parsifal traipsing around in samite. Parsifal is a completely outmoded concept, and so is Heracles. They were archetypes for a lawless world. That world no longer exists in our context (though people in Africa or parts of Mexico may have opinions of their own).

And there's no need for "chapel perilous". It's jargon that no longer means anything to anyone outside of a very small community of people who seem to need jargon from another time to describe what they THINK they need today. You can accomplish the same thing with the ECH-ean "Sack the fuck up" terminology, for three times the result, with the added bonus that you don't have to sound like a dork at parties.

It's got EVERYTHING. A few dozen brave losers, an evil horde of enemies, and a glorious last stand. Of course, from a historical point of view, it looks a little shabby when the glitz rubs off, but as a myth, it's right the fuck up there with Xenophon and his ten thousand.

Or just the Southern "Lost Cause", where tens of thousands of yahoos bemoan the fact that they lost a war they were fighting so that the burden of self-determination would not rest so heavily upon their shoulders.

One thing that stands out in my mind is how rights of passages like the military and gangs seem to be rooted in aggression and violence. That's not to say that having a good sense of strength and responsibility that comes with these groups...(maybe not so much responsibility with the later...) isn't a necessary quality that comes with manhood. I just wonder if using that model is really what men need. I'm really not sure--it's just that something kind of seems off with that.

Eh, most of the rights of passage in the military that I have experienced are not rooted in violence. In fact the only one that was rooted in violence was the final day of combative training.

Most of it was "take care of my shit", which in fact IS pretty epic, when the predominant cultural more is "someone take care of my shit".

I understand this clearly from my own personal experience--that's what I really mean by responsibility. To me, being a man, means taking responsibility for oneself and those who are important. Granted, I've never been in the military so I can't really speak to it directly and I recognize this. It's just the context alone seems to me to be a bit misguided. But then I'm sure I don't have the answers to what our society really needs.

One thing that stands out in my mind is how rights of passages like the military and gangs seem to be rooted in aggression and violence. That's not to say that having a good sense of strength and responsibility that comes with these groups...(maybe not so much responsibility with the later...) isn't a necessary quality that comes with manhood. I just wonder if using that model is really what men need. I'm really not sure--it's just that something kind of seems off with that.

Eh, most of the rights of passage in the military that I have experienced are not rooted in violence. In fact the only one that was rooted in violence was the final day of combative training.

Most of it was "take care of my shit", which in fact IS pretty epic, when the predominant cultural more is "someone take care of my shit".

I understand this clearly from my own personal experience--that's what I really mean by responsibility. To me, being a man, means taking responsibility for oneself and those who are important. Granted, I've never been in the military so I can't really speak to it directly and I recognize this. It's just the context alone seems to me to be a bit misguided. But then I'm sure I don't have the answers to what our society really needs.

the perfect cure for "society won't let me be manly enough"...systemic collapse and regression to a shitty past that we had one time clawed our way out of.

Fuck that. Let Bly's fuckers move to the Congo if that's their problem. They will soon learn about "manliness". I want painless dentistry more than I want to have my manhood validated. I already know WHAT I am. If they don't, that's their fucking problem.

One thing that stands out in my mind is how rights of passages like the military and gangs seem to be rooted in aggression and violence. That's not to say that having a good sense of strength and responsibility that comes with these groups...(maybe not so much responsibility with the later...) isn't a necessary quality that comes with manhood. I just wonder if using that model is really what men need. I'm really not sure--it's just that something kind of seems off with that.

Campbell used to bemoan the unisex culture a lot. Not LGBT or any of that, but identical roles for everybody. He said things like "the male body is built for combat" and "the function of the male is to secure and maintain a field for the female to bring forth the future". I don't think he literally meant that everybody nowadays needs to run around clubbing people over the head, more the fact that we have the same basic wiring as people did a long time ago and it doesn't have an outlet. The outlet could be athletics or something, he seemed to be saying that some things need to be available that are "just for guys" and some "just for women".

the perfect cure for "society won't let me be manly enough"...systemic collapse and regression to a shitty past that we had one time clawed our way out of.

Fuck that. Let Bly's fuckers move to the Congo if that's their problem. They will soon learn about "manliness". I want painless dentistry more than I want to have my manhood validated. I already know WHAT I am. If they don't, that's their fucking problem.

the perfect cure for "society won't let me be manly enough"...systemic collapse and regression to a shitty past that we had one time clawed our way out of.

Fuck that. Let Bly's fuckers move to the Congo if that's their problem. They will soon learn about "manliness". I want painless dentistry more than I want to have my manhood validated. I already know WHAT I am. If they don't, that's their fucking problem.

exactly.we should enjoy being pansies while we can.

Absolutely.

If you insist on "civilized" equal to being a pansy.

I don't. Pretty sure you don't, either. Or you wouldn't be here, you'd be on some teabagger Illinois board, endlessly shouting how much you hate Obama and Mexicans.

the perfect cure for "society won't let me be manly enough"...systemic collapse and regression to a shitty past that we had one time clawed our way out of.

Fuck that. Let Bly's fuckers move to the Congo if that's their problem. They will soon learn about "manliness". I want painless dentistry more than I want to have my manhood validated. I already know WHAT I am. If they don't, that's their fucking problem.

I too enjoy painless dentistry, and not having to run down my food on foot with a spear.

Dok, I take your point on rituals and myths... I think there are some American myths Washington, Johnny Appleseed etc. and we do have some rituals, as you mentioned. However, these aren't the mythic sort... they aren't the kind that guide the individual on their own journey.

Sure they are. You're expecting them to look like myths from the classical era and the middle ages, and you're expecting rituals to look like something out of RAW or Campbell.

But they don't. They look like everyday shit, the usual business of crawling from the cradle to the grave, and the fact that they happen every day sort of makes them invisible...If you're expecting something like Parsifal traipsing around in samite. Parsifal is a completely outmoded concept, and so is Heracles. They were archetypes for a lawless world. That world no longer exists in our context (though people in Africa or parts of Mexico may have opinions of their own).

And there's no need for "chapel perilous". It's jargon that no longer means anything to anyone outside of a very small community of people who seem to need jargon from another time to describe what they THINK they need today. You can accomplish the same thing with the ECH-ean "Sack the fuck up" terminology, for three times the result, with the added bonus that you don't have to sound like a dork at parties.

This is one of the reasons I became disinterested in mahhhgique and paganism.

the perfect cure for "society won't let me be manly enough"...systemic collapse and regression to a shitty past that we had one time clawed our way out of.

Fuck that. Let Bly's fuckers move to the Congo if that's their problem. They will soon learn about "manliness". I want painless dentistry more than I want to have my manhood validated. I already know WHAT I am. If they don't, that's their fucking problem.

That's it. That's what I think is important. I'm not really concerned with rituals, but what does concern me is seeing my fellow men walk about the world with their tail between their legs. There just seems to be such an absence of leadership, strength and courage--albeit the problems they face are nothing more than 'first world' issues.

the perfect cure for "society won't let me be manly enough"...systemic collapse and regression to a shitty past that we had one time clawed our way out of.

Fuck that. Let Bly's fuckers move to the Congo if that's their problem. They will soon learn about "manliness". I want painless dentistry more than I want to have my manhood validated. I already know WHAT I am. If they don't, that's their fucking problem.

I too enjoy painless dentistry, and not having to run down my food on foot with a spear.

Dok, I take your point on rituals and myths... I think there are some American myths Washington, Johnny Appleseed etc. and we do have some rituals, as you mentioned. However, these aren't the mythic sort... they aren't the kind that guide the individual on their own journey.

Sure they are. You're expecting them to look like myths from the classical era and the middle ages, and you're expecting rituals to look like something out of RAW or Campbell.

But they don't. They look like everyday shit, the usual business of crawling from the cradle to the grave, and the fact that they happen every day sort of makes them invisible...If you're expecting something like Parsifal traipsing around in samite. Parsifal is a completely outmoded concept, and so is Heracles. They were archetypes for a lawless world. That world no longer exists in our context (though people in Africa or parts of Mexico may have opinions of their own).

And there's no need for "chapel perilous". It's jargon that no longer means anything to anyone outside of a very small community of people who seem to need jargon from another time to describe what they THINK they need today. You can accomplish the same thing with the ECH-ean "Sack the fuck up" terminology, for three times the result, with the added bonus that you don't have to sound like a dork at parties.

This is one of the reasons I became disinterested in mahhhgique and paganism.

Well, don't get me wrong: I think RAW had some great fucking ideas, and he found his own way to describe them. But to slavishly memorize his ideas and use his terminology as holy writ is kind of contrary to everything the guy talked about. He's getting the same corpse-buggering that Jesus got, though his fans tend to be a lot less malicious about it.

The funny thing is, most of what RAW talked about was stuff that Leary talked about, only RAW put it in different terms, so he himself would understand it better. HIS disciples would be well-advised to do the same thing...Restructure what HE said, so that THEY understand it more completely. If you can't do that, YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND THE CONCEPTS INVOLVED.

Because it would be a fucking shame if everything that Leary and RAW said was reduced to cult knowledge among the terminally bookish.

the perfect cure for "society won't let me be manly enough"...systemic collapse and regression to a shitty past that we had one time clawed our way out of.

Fuck that. Let Bly's fuckers move to the Congo if that's their problem. They will soon learn about "manliness". I want painless dentistry more than I want to have my manhood validated. I already know WHAT I am. If they don't, that's their fucking problem.

That's it. That's what I think is important. I'm not really concerned with rituals, but what does concern me is seeing my fellow men walk about the world with their tail between their legs. There just seems to be such an absence of leadership, strength and courage--albeit the problems they face are nothing more than 'first world' issues.

Um, to everyone else in the world, that's a mark of SUCCESS. The ability to whine about shit that doesn't matter, rather than the fact that your child has rickets and your wife was carried off by the local warlord's troops and left in a 55 gallon drum after the party.

the perfect cure for "society won't let me be manly enough"...systemic collapse and regression to a shitty past that we had one time clawed our way out of.

Fuck that. Let Bly's fuckers move to the Congo if that's their problem. They will soon learn about "manliness". I want painless dentistry more than I want to have my manhood validated. I already know WHAT I am. If they don't, that's their fucking problem.

exactly.we should enjoy being pansies while we can.

Absolutely.

If you insist on "civilized" equal to being a pansy.

I don't. Pretty sure you don't, either. Or you wouldn't be here, you'd be on some teabagger Illinois board, endlessly shouting how much you hate Obama and Mexicans.

yeah. i was just being flip.hell, the perfect end goal is a world of plenty and leisure, right? how macho will we be at that point? We'll be like the Eloi or the Brave Londoners of 632 A.F. (hopefully a little more empathetic of our fellows than the former, i guess)

but i don't see that as likely. we're at a high water mark now.

Burns, i didn't mean to dismiss the concern altogether... it is an issue in my opinion. i've often thought of what rites of passage would have done me well growing up, and how to see that i can arrange for my sons to benefit from them.

i was just pointing out that it's probably a luxurious problem to face, and we may not have to worry about it in a generation or two (maybe less) due to a harsher reality forcing us into a continuous test of manhood.i think i was being rudely flip, and apologize for that.

Just before my son went off to the Marines, a few other veterans and I got him FUCKED UP, as was done to me and my father and so on.

The military itself RELIES on tradition, ritual, and ceremony. I think that's why it's so effective in this regard.

However, I'm gonna restate my earlier assertion that this should never be mandatory in any way, as forcing this sort of shit on people is counterproductive as hell, and morally repugnant. You can't force people to grow up.

the perfect cure for "society won't let me be manly enough"...systemic collapse and regression to a shitty past that we had one time clawed our way out of.

Fuck that. Let Bly's fuckers move to the Congo if that's their problem. They will soon learn about "manliness". I want painless dentistry more than I want to have my manhood validated. I already know WHAT I am. If they don't, that's their fucking problem.

That's it. That's what I think is important. I'm not really concerned with rituals, but what does concern me is seeing my fellow men walk about the world with their tail between their legs. There just seems to be such an absence of leadership, strength and courage--albeit the problems they face are nothing more than 'first world' issues.

I'm sorry, but a lot of this smells like the "men's rights" movement. And, uh, fuck that. "Oh noes! Male men are not being required to stick to traditional gender roles for 'men'! This is some how damaging to my own manliness!"Also:

Quote

There just seems to be such an absence of leadership, strength and courage....

the perfect cure for "society won't let me be manly enough"...systemic collapse and regression to a shitty past that we had one time clawed our way out of.

Fuck that. Let Bly's fuckers move to the Congo if that's their problem. They will soon learn about "manliness". I want painless dentistry more than I want to have my manhood validated. I already know WHAT I am. If they don't, that's their fucking problem.

exactly.we should enjoy being pansies while we can.

Absolutely.

If you insist on "civilized" equal to being a pansy.

I don't. Pretty sure you don't, either. Or you wouldn't be here, you'd be on some teabagger Illinois board, endlessly shouting how much you hate Obama and Mexicans.

yeah. i was just being flip.hell, the perfect end goal is a world of plenty and leisure, right? how macho will we be at that point? We'll be like the Eloi or the Brave Londoners of 632 A.F. (hopefully a little more empathetic of our fellows than the former, i guess)

but i don't see that as likely. we're at a high water mark now.

Burns, i didn't mean to dismiss the concern altogether... it is an issue in my opinion. i've often thought of what rites of passage would have done me well growing up, and how to see that i can arrange for my sons to benefit from them.

i was just pointing out that it's probably a luxurious problem to face, and we may not have to worry about it in a generation or two (maybe less) due to a harsher reality forcing us into a continuous test of manhood.i think i was being rudely flip, and apologize for that.

I don't feel an apology is necessary. It's interesting to think about who would stand in the face of a harsher reality and to consider what inner qualities are necessary for a man (or woman for that matter) in that kind of event.

The Mythopoetic Men's Movement was probably a fancy version of a deer lease, anyway. A chance for the guys to get away from their wives and bosses and get shitfaced.

At least I hope so, because the thought of an overweight cubicle drone with a sock tan hopping around and banging a drum SOBER is truly disturbing.

While the methods used aren't exactly something I think is very effective, I think that it's a good start. Hell, guys probably should get away from their wives from time to time for both his and her benefit.

The Mythopoetic Men's Movement was probably a fancy version of a deer lease, anyway. A chance for the guys to get away from their wives and bosses and get shitfaced.

At least I hope so, because the thought of an overweight cubicle drone with a sock tan hopping around and banging a drum SOBER is truly disturbing.

While the methods used aren't exactly something I think is very effective, I think that it's a good start. Hell, guys probably should get away from their wives from time to time for both his and her benefit.

There is, I think, a subtle difference between, "hey, honey, the guys and I are going to go fishing for the weekend" and "I MUST BE A MAN AND GET AWAY FROM YOUR ESTROGEN POISON!"

The Mythopoetic Men's Movement was probably a fancy version of a deer lease, anyway. A chance for the guys to get away from their wives and bosses and get shitfaced.

At least I hope so, because the thought of an overweight cubicle drone with a sock tan hopping around and banging a drum SOBER is truly disturbing.

While the methods used aren't exactly something I think is very effective, I think that it's a good start. Hell, guys probably should get away from their wives from time to time for both his and her benefit.

the perfect cure for "society won't let me be manly enough"...systemic collapse and regression to a shitty past that we had one time clawed our way out of.

Fuck that. Let Bly's fuckers move to the Congo if that's their problem. They will soon learn about "manliness". I want painless dentistry more than I want to have my manhood validated. I already know WHAT I am. If they don't, that's their fucking problem.

That's it. That's what I think is important. I'm not really concerned with rituals, but what does concern me is seeing my fellow men walk about the world with their tail between their legs. There just seems to be such an absence of leadership, strength and courage--albeit the problems they face are nothing more than 'first world' issues.

I'm sorry, but a lot of this smells like the "men's rights" movement. And, uh, fuck that. "Oh noes! Male men are not being required to stick to traditional gender roles for 'men'! This is some how damaging to my own manliness!"

I thought the Mythopoetic mens movement was the "men's rights" movement. I think Roger stated it best when he said, "I already know WHAT I am. If they don't, that's their fucking problem," earlier ITT.

Honestly, I like the traditional gender role associated with manhood and manliness. It's useful to me and I appreciate the qualities inherent in it. Do I think that ALL males should be forced to adopt it? Of course not. I appreciate guys who are more feminine for reasons I'd rather not go into here.

However, exploring what it means to take on this role in society today is really interesting to me. What I hope to explore ITT and elsewhere is the relationship of this Man archetype to the modern ideas and roles of today. The whole dynamic changes in relation to feminism, gender flexibility, women roles, and so on. Through all of this, I'm looking toward seeking my own definition.

Quote

Also:

Quote

There just seems to be such an absence of leadership, strength and courage....

What? Is this explicitly attached to "man" for you?

C'mon now...Just because I attribute these qualities to 'man' doesn't mean I exclude them from 'women' or 'transgender.' In pursuit of my own definition, I most certainly feel that these are necessary qualities among many others.

The Mythopoetic Men's Movement was probably a fancy version of a deer lease, anyway. A chance for the guys to get away from their wives and bosses and get shitfaced.

At least I hope so, because the thought of an overweight cubicle drone with a sock tan hopping around and banging a drum SOBER is truly disturbing.

While the methods used aren't exactly something I think is very effective, I think that it's a good start. Hell, guys probably should get away from their wives from time to time for both his and her benefit.

There is, I think, a subtle difference between, "hey, honey, the guys and I are going to go fishing for the weekend" and "I MUST BE A MAN AND GET AWAY FROM YOUR ESTROGEN POISON!"

Absolutely...and I think this is precisely the stigma attached to the masculine role today. It's one thing to perhaps get up on stage and joke about the differences between men an women and another to take the jokes as absolute truth.

Another one that comes to mind is the whole, "Real men don't cry or show emotion" thing. I mean this shit was beaten into my head for as far back as I can remember. Even the Maassi teens, while they're getting their foreskin cut off have to not show any form of emotion or they fail the test. It's pretty weird.

Absolutely...and I think this is precisely the stigma attached to the masculine role today. It's one thing to perhaps get up on stage and joke about the differences between men an women and another to take the jokes as absolute truth.

Another one that comes to mind is the whole, "Real men don't cry or show emotion" thing. I mean this shit was beaten into my head for as far back as I can remember. Even the Maassi teens, while they're getting their foreskin cut off have to not show any form of emotion or they fail the test. It's pretty weird.

Want weird? A man who, on the day he gets married, decides that (despite the fact that she works as many hours as he does) he never has to cook, do laundry, clean, or wash a fucking dish again.

I think this MRA is different to the one mentioned by Garbo. They froth some egregious shit sometimes, and are usually trying to hang onto their straight white male privilege. Usually misogynists of the highest order, and make some radical feminists look like fluffy kittens.

Absolutely...and I think this is precisely the stigma attached to the masculine role today. It's one thing to perhaps get up on stage and joke about the differences between men an women and another to take the jokes as absolute truth.

Another one that comes to mind is the whole, "Real men don't cry or show emotion" thing. I mean this shit was beaten into my head for as far back as I can remember. Even the Maassi teens, while they're getting their foreskin cut off have to not show any form of emotion or they fail the test. It's pretty weird.

Want weird? A man who, on the day he gets married, decides that (despite the fact that she works as many hours as he does) he never has to cook, do laundry, clean, or wash a fucking dish again.

I think this MRA is different to the one mentioned by Garbo. They froth some egregious shit sometimes, and are usually trying to hang onto their straight white male privilege. Usually misogynists of the highest order, and make some radical feminists look like fluffy kittens.

Absolutely...and I think this is precisely the stigma attached to the masculine role today. It's one thing to perhaps get up on stage and joke about the differences between men an women and another to take the jokes as absolute truth.

Another one that comes to mind is the whole, "Real men don't cry or show emotion" thing. I mean this shit was beaten into my head for as far back as I can remember. Even the Maassi teens, while they're getting their foreskin cut off have to not show any form of emotion or they fail the test. It's pretty weird.

Want weird? A man who, on the day he gets married, decides that (despite the fact that she works as many hours as he does) he never has to cook, do laundry, clean, or wash a fucking dish again.

I think that might be some of what Campbell was talking about, as far as people not knowing what's expected anymore (or in this case, using an anachronism as an excuse to be a fuckwad). At one time it would have been understood that things like that were the woman's job, but that was only because she generally wasn't working outside the home.

Hell, if some guy was paying all my bills and generally treating me decent, stuff like that would be no problem (unless we had thirteen kids or some shit like that, aiiiii..). It just doesn't happen that much anymore. Never mind feminism and the ERA, the economy doesn't permit it.

Absolutely...and I think this is precisely the stigma attached to the masculine role today. It's one thing to perhaps get up on stage and joke about the differences between men an women and another to take the jokes as absolute truth.

Another one that comes to mind is the whole, "Real men don't cry or show emotion" thing. I mean this shit was beaten into my head for as far back as I can remember. Even the Maassi teens, while they're getting their foreskin cut off have to not show any form of emotion or they fail the test. It's pretty weird.

Want weird? A man who, on the day he gets married, decides that (despite the fact that she works as many hours as he does) he never has to cook, do laundry, clean, or wash a fucking dish again.

Don't think he ever forgave me for disabusing him of THAT particular notion. Fuckhead.

Absolutely...and I think this is precisely the stigma attached to the masculine role today. It's one thing to perhaps get up on stage and joke about the differences between men an women and another to take the jokes as absolute truth.

Another one that comes to mind is the whole, "Real men don't cry or show emotion" thing. I mean this shit was beaten into my head for as far back as I can remember. Even the Maassi teens, while they're getting their foreskin cut off have to not show any form of emotion or they fail the test. It's pretty weird.

Want weird? A man who, on the day he gets married, decides that (despite the fact that she works as many hours as he does) he never has to cook, do laundry, clean, or wash a fucking dish again.

:lulz:

Oh no!, Luna!

Don't think he ever forgave me for disabusing him of THAT particular notion. Fuckhead.

Thing is I have to suspect that he learned that behavior from probably the male figures in his life while growing up. To me, this is the sort of thing that men need to move away from. It's almost like we need to redefine the role while incorporating the new values and the economy (thanks Anna Mae) of today.

Another one that comes to mind is the whole, "Real men don't cry or show emotion" thing. I mean this shit was beaten into my head for as far back as I can remember. Even the Maassi teens, while they're getting their foreskin cut off have to not show any form of emotion or they fail the test. It's pretty weird.

It seems straight-forward to me.a test of strength in self control.if i see some person enduring some intense pain without flinching, it demands respect...

Another one that comes to mind is the whole, "Real men don't cry or show emotion" thing. I mean this shit was beaten into my head for as far back as I can remember. Even the Maassi teens, while they're getting their foreskin cut off have to not show any form of emotion or they fail the test. It's pretty weird.

It seems straight-forward to me.a test of strength in self control.if i see some person enduring some intense pain without flinching, it demands respect...

Well yes, I get why--just that this idea of withholding emotion has maintained to this day in ways that don't really jive with what makes a healthy human being. If it happened to me, I'm sure I'd fucking flinch...I'd flinch the fuck out...but that doesn't necessarily make me less of a man.

Another one that comes to mind is the whole, "Real men don't cry or show emotion" thing. I mean this shit was beaten into my head for as far back as I can remember. Even the Maassi teens, while they're getting their foreskin cut off have to not show any form of emotion or they fail the test. It's pretty weird.

It seems straight-forward to me.a test of strength in self control.if i see some person enduring some intense pain without flinching, it demands respect...

Well yes, I get why--just that this idea of withholding emotion has maintained to this day in ways that don't really jive with what makes a healthy human being. If it happened to me, I'm sure I'd fucking flinch...I'd flinch the fuck out...but that doesn't necessarily make me less of a man.

If you flinched sufficiently far enough, it would make you less of a man (castration lol).

I'm sorry, but a lot of this smells like the "men's rights" movement. And, uh, fuck that. "Oh noes! Male men are not being required to stick to traditional gender roles for 'men'! This is some how damaging to my own manliness!"

It's more a primitivist thing than a reaction to feminism. The world has become too complicated, you see, and these guys want to go back to banging on drums to pretend that it's not as complicated. They don't want to go back to the days before the benefits of those complications (indoor plumbing, pennicillin, etc), they just want to spend a day or two playing make-believe.

They know something is wrong with their culture, but they don't know precisely what it is. So, instead of examining the culture and looking for solutions, they run and hide behind faux-primitive rituals.

I'm sorry, but a lot of this smells like the "men's rights" movement. And, uh, fuck that. "Oh noes! Male men are not being required to stick to traditional gender roles for 'men'! This is some how damaging to my own manliness!"

It's more a primitivist thing than a reaction to feminism. The world has become too complicated, you see, and these guys want to go back to banging on drums to pretend that it's not as complicated. They don't want to go back to the days before the benefits of those complications (indoor plumbing, pennicillin, etc), they just want to spend a day or two playing make-believe.

They know something is wrong with their culture, but they don't know precisely what it is. So, instead of examining the culture and looking for solutions, they run and hide behind faux-primitive rituals.

Like a lot of the people involved in historical reenactment/recreation.

I'm sorry, but a lot of this smells like the "men's rights" movement. And, uh, fuck that. "Oh noes! Male men are not being required to stick to traditional gender roles for 'men'! This is some how damaging to my own manliness!"

It's more a primitivist thing than a reaction to feminism. The world has become too complicated, you see, and these guys want to go back to banging on drums to pretend that it's not as complicated. They don't want to go back to the days before the benefits of those complications (indoor plumbing, pennicillin, etc), they just want to spend a day or two playing make-believe.

They know something is wrong with their culture, but they don't know precisely what it is. So, instead of examining the culture and looking for solutions, they run and hide behind faux-primitive rituals.

That about sums it up. I've been listening to Iron John and yeah....I think you're pretty much right.

One of the things Bly talks about is that men don't have ways of dealing with wounds. That, through diving into ones grief, we can discover a source of spontaneity. He goes into the archetypal sources of the wound (achillies, parsifal) and uses that as a framework for dealing with our own wounds.

I wonder if that's accurate. Bly was very anti-war and mentioned, at one point, a distinction between the wild man archetype and the savage man. The former being the characterization of Iron John...that 'deep masculine' who carries and turns his own wounds into gold and the later characterizing the man who hides his wounds and takes it out in a violent manner.

It's more a primitivist thing than a reaction to feminism. The world has become too complicated, you see, and these guys want to go back to banging on drums to pretend that it's not as complicated. They don't want to go back to the days before the benefits of those complications (indoor plumbing, pennicillin, etc), they just want to spend a day or two playing make-believe.

They know something is wrong with their culture, but they don't know precisely what it is. So, instead of examining the culture and looking for solutions, they run and hide behind faux-primitive rituals.

Much truth there is in what you say. (http://i47.tinypic.com/or4dmv.gif)

Riffing a bit off the archetypal aspect of Bly's Jungian connection, I'd like to mention the four masculine archetypes presented in Robert L. Moore's and Douglas Gillette's book: King, Warrior, Magician, Lover: Rediscovering the Archetypes of the Mature Masculine (http://www.robertmoore-phd.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=product.display&product_ID=55)

From the link:

Quote

They define the four mature male archetypes - the King (the energy of just and creative ordering), the Warrior (the energy of self-disciplined, aggressive action), the Magician (the energy of initiation and transformation), and the Lover (the energy that connects men to others and the world) - as well as the four immature patterns (Divine Child, Oedipal Child, Precocious Child, and Hero).

I also found a nice illustration to describe how the immature patterns manifest in the mature male archetypes. Here that is: (http://www.masculinity-movies.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/06/kwml-model.png)

The authors, too, think that the initiation rituals present today such as military, gangs corporate structures are inadequate for a healthy masculine Individuation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Individuation). You know, if you're into that sort of thing. (Relatively).

What do you folks think of these archetypes and immature patterns? Can we use these archetypes to grow in other ways aside from making a male ritual space where old dudes recite poetry and spout fairy tales?

First, Bly's understanding of what it is to be a "man" seems... clumsy. Rigid. And very "Occidental". Do we even see the same "problem" he sees? Are men becoming weaker, or are they moving away from a social norm that could be rooted in primal behavior may not in itself be beneficial to bipeds?

This is a very good point. He's still looking at what men "were"... not what men are.

However, there isn't much direction, even from culture about what men 'are'. We have so many competing concepts, most of which seem incompatible. Are men tough and macho, are they thoughtful, feeling and in touch with their 'feminine side'? Is being a man about making money, or 'making a difference'?

Once upon a time, these questions were simple, so the biped could figure out what they were supposed to be doing. Today, most people don't need to be hunters or warriors. They don't even need to be laborers which is what many from the last few generations identified with. Even for the hunters, warriors and laborers, the work is simplified by technology. No one is hunting a bear with a spear, knowing that failure means the neighborhood won't eat. No one is looking across the field at an enemy, knowing that they'll be coming to physical blows and many of their companions won't be coming back. Even the labor is now more about pushing buttons, than hauling heavy loads, or descending into a deep mine, where your life (and the welfare of your family) is constantly on the line.

Dok, I take your point on rituals and myths... I think there are some American myths Washington, Johnny Appleseed etc. and we do have some rituals, as you mentioned. However, these aren't the mythic sort... they aren't the kind that guide the individual on their own journey.

Maybe birthdays, graduation and weddings count... but those have mostly turned into excuses for parties rather than any kind of serious idea of change.

This is right up my path, don't know how I missed it. I riffed on this last year with a similar issue (http://www.principiadiscordia.com/forum/index.php/topic,30617.0.html) specifically that men don't have defined roles. Or if they do, they're commercial messages, and rejecting those messages puts us back to square one. In the end I thought the best move was to develop a personal vision of masculinity to aspire to.

I also grew to realise that there's a lot of people who just don't give a shit about what being a man/woman means, and that's cool too.

I'm sorry, but a lot of this smells like the "men's rights" movement. And, uh, fuck that. "Oh noes! Male men are not being required to stick to traditional gender roles for 'men'! This is some how damaging to my own manliness!"

It's more a primitivist thing than a reaction to feminism. The world has become too complicated, you see, and these guys want to go back to banging on drums to pretend that it's not as complicated. They don't want to go back to the days before the benefits of those complications (indoor plumbing, pennicillin, etc), they just want to spend a day or two playing make-believe.

They know something is wrong with their culture, but they don't know precisely what it is. So, instead of examining the culture and looking for solutions, they run and hide behind faux-primitive rituals.

Riffing a bit off the archetypal aspect of Bly's Jungian connection, I'd like to mention the four masculine archetypes presented in Robert L. Moore's and Douglas Gillette's book: King, Warrior, Magician, Lover: Rediscovering the Archetypes of the Mature Masculine (http://www.robertmoore-phd.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=product.display&product_ID=55)

From the link:

Quote

They define the four mature male archetypes - the King (the energy of just and creative ordering), the Warrior (the energy of self-disciplined, aggressive action), the Magician (the energy of initiation and transformation), and the Lover (the energy that connects men to others and the world) - as well as the four immature patterns (Divine Child, Oedipal Child, Precocious Child, and Hero).

I also found a nice illustration to describe how the immature patterns manifest in the mature male archetypes. Here that is: (http://www.masculinity-movies.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/06/kwml-model.png)

The authors, too, think that the initiation rituals present today such as military, gangs corporate structures are inadequate for a healthy masculine Individuation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Individuation). You know, if you're into that sort of thing. (Relatively).

What do you folks think of these archetypes and immature patterns? Can we use these archetypes to grow in other ways aside from making a male ritual space where old dudes recite poetry and spout fairy tales?

I look for practical models, and this seems to fit the bill. I like it a lot.

I also like the work of John Beebe. He talks about Jung a lot. THIS PIECE (http://www.jungatlanta.com/articles/winter08-evolving-the-eight-function-model.pdf) mashed up the Myer-Briggs test with Jungian archtypes by taking your four strongest functions and putting them on par with heroic archtypes, and them takes the four weakest functions and connects them to Villain archtypes.

(...) The mythopoetic men's movement aims to liberate men from the constraints of the modern world which keep them from being in touch with their true masculine nature, and is best known for the rituals that take place during their gatherings. (...)

I haven't read the whole thread yet so maybe this has been answered, but I couldn't find anything about these rituals on the Wiki page either, what are they?

From what I've read so far it doesn't even seem that tight of a uniform. Maybe not quite as loose-fit as Discordianism, but like many types of self-actualization things, it seems like you can do it for a while, learn some valuable things (about yourself and/or people in general), and then drop it as you discover you reached the bottom of what there is to learn. Maybe I'm being too optimistic, but I think that people who get "stuck" in such a uniform would have gotten stuck in one thing or the next, regardless.

(BTW in all fairness, the above paragraph also holds for the whole PUA thing. At least, 10 years ago when I became interested in it: Learned some very valuable things [actually basic social skills that I had managed never to pick up], noticed how the rest was kinda flawed, and moved on, but an experience richer)

The flaw in this particular movement, from what I've seen so far, is that it makes the assumption that before feminism, all great men were very masculine. And men that weren't, can't have been great men.

Even if this were the case--which it isn't--that would mean the situation is reversed, complain now about how men might feel restricted and held back to "express their masculinity" (lol), means that back then, brilliant men that had a more feminine streak or just didn't care for the whole masculine thing, would feel pressured to behave according to the "manly" expectations of the time.

In other words, it's going for the fallacy that there was some mythical period in time when people were still "pure" and "natural" (and organic! and not from concentrate!) when everything was better and we somehow lost this paradise over our lust for progress and we need to get back to this and die from infected toenails at the age of 30 again (oh wait that was the other movement).

(...) The mythopoetic men's movement aims to liberate men from the constraints of the modern world which keep them from being in touch with their true masculine nature, and is best known for the rituals that take place during their gatherings. (...)

I haven't read the whole thread yet so maybe this has been answered, but I couldn't find anything about these rituals on the Wiki page either, what are they?

I think what's more important to them isn't so much as the rituals themselves but rather more so the ritual space they intend to create. They use drumming, story telling, do poetry readings, sing songs, tell anecdotes, reveal personal wounds, make masks, dance--sort of thing--all in the company of supportive fellow men.

From what I've read so far it doesn't even seem that tight of a uniform. Maybe not quite as loose-fit as Discordianism, but like many types of self-actualization things, it seems like you can do it for a while, learn some valuable things (about yourself and/or people in general), and then drop it as you discover you reached the bottom of what there is to learn. Maybe I'm being too optimistic, but I think that people who get "stuck" in such a uniform would have gotten stuck in one thing or the next, regardless.

From what I've read/listened to so far, I think Bly might agree with this.

One of the things Robert Moore (the second generation Jungian of whom Bly is an enormous fan) says that younger men should be admired by an older man in a kind of mentor role. So, rather than being stuck in a uniform, it's more about finding fellowship and a path through the previously constricted uniforms in which men find themselves in post-industrial society.

(BTW in all fairness, the above paragraph also holds for the whole PUA thing. At least, 10 years ago when I became interested in it: Learned some very valuable things [actually basic social skills that I had managed never to pick up], noticed how the rest was kinda flawed, and moved on, but an experience richer)

The flaw in this particular movement, from what I've seen so far, is that it makes the assumption that before feminism, all great men were very masculine. And men that weren't, can't have been great men.

I think this might be the narrow view. While it does seem to be related to feminism I don't think it's necessarily a reaction AGAINST feminism. A least from the several lectures and books I've read so far.

Bly takes a mythological standpoint as a foundation to explore into the masculine archetypes. He feels that in our post-industrial culture that men have a lot of less time with their fathers and so boys no longer have that strong masculine role around. They talked a lot about how in the past boys would have a rite of passage where the men would take the boys away from their mother, go through initiation, and then become men. Since our fathers are no longer around as much, boys are more raised by the stronger feminine role rather than the masculine.

I've heard Bly full acknowledge how women are oppressed in the various ways feminism describes but what he is against is the tendency for some feminists to blame all men and put the responsibility on all men for the heinous atrocities some men have done.

Even if this were the case--which it isn't--that would mean the situation is reversed, complain now about how men might feel restricted and held back to "express their masculinity" (lol), means that back then, brilliant men that had a more feminine streak or just didn't care for the whole masculine thing, would feel pressured to behave according to the "manly" expectations of the time.

Bly and Moore have made a distinction between 'being a man' and 'being macho.' I think what you're describing falls under the macho category.

In other words, it's going for the fallacy that there was some mythical period in time when people were still "pure" and "natural" (and organic! and not from concentrate!) when everything was better and we somehow lost this paradise over our lust for progress and we need to get back to this and die from infected toenails at the age of 30 again (oh wait that was the other movement).

The idea here isn't necessarily going back into that 'better time' but to use mythologies and fairy tales to find those core masculine archetypes. See my previous post about the King, Warrior, Magician and Lover. They use a ritual space to do this exploration among fellow men of all ages in order to regain a sense of masculine self that was left off and wounded due to the lack of a masculine role to follow as they grew up.

In my own opinion there are parts that are useful and parts which I don't find particularly valuable.

Let me point out something I did on a more personal level and probably wouldn't otherwise if I hadn't checked this stuff out...

My own father left my mother when I was about five years old and my mother did a pretty amazing job as a single mother. She saved money to buy a plot of land and then build a modest house on it. She raised me while working under a drug abusing, highly unstable boss.

In her own grief and frustration she would pretty harshly put my dad down for what "he had done to us." A lot of my life growing up involved a lot of trying to please mom and help her out. This inevitably resulted in 'nice guy behavior' and found its way into many of my personal relationships. This approval seeking and sometimes manipulative behavior didn't help me very much.

My father just did his thing, but never ever kept me out of his life. Although, for a good number of years (20+) I harbored a lot of unnecessary resentment toward my father that cause a bit of an unspoken strain on our relationship.

So I called him up the other day. I told him that I loved him and that I've been doing some inner work and wanted to let him know that I no longer think of him the way my mom thinks of him (among a few other things, while related, I don't really need to go into here). I told him how my view was colored and that we don't need to continue our relationship like that any more. There was some emotional poison there that's no more..

Granted, I didn't need to go to a retreat in Minnesota for this but I can say, on a personal level, that this sort of work can be useful.

(...) The mythopoetic men's movement aims to liberate men from the constraints of the modern world which keep them from being in touch with their true masculine nature, and is best known for the rituals that take place during their gatherings. (...)

I haven't read the whole thread yet so maybe this has been answered, but I couldn't find anything about these rituals on the Wiki page either, what are they?

I think what's more important to them isn't so much as the rituals themselves but rather more so the ritual space they intend to create. They use drumming, story telling, do poetry readings, sing songs, tell anecdotes, reveal personal wounds, make masks, dance--sort of thing--all in the company of supportive fellow men.

They were doing it in the Black Hills.

The BLACK HILLS.

Which were deeded to the Lakota in a treaty "as long as grass grows and water flows", and have since been peppered with such attractions as the Flintstones Bedrock City and a bunch of lawyers and accountants playing Indian. The decision to have his mens weekends in the Black Hills - after Wounded Knee I and II and a laundry list of other shit - all this tells me pretty much all I need to know about Bly right there.

(...) The mythopoetic men's movement aims to liberate men from the constraints of the modern world which keep them from being in touch with their true masculine nature, and is best known for the rituals that take place during their gatherings. (...)

I haven't read the whole thread yet so maybe this has been answered, but I couldn't find anything about these rituals on the Wiki page either, what are they?

I think what's more important to them isn't so much as the rituals themselves but rather more so the ritual space they intend to create. They use drumming, story telling, do poetry readings, sing songs, tell anecdotes, reveal personal wounds, make masks, dance--sort of thing--all in the company of supportive fellow men.

They were doing it in the Black Hills.

The BLACK HILLS.

Which were deeded to the Lakota in a treaty "as long as grass grows and water flows", and have since been peppered with such attractions as the Flintstones Bedrock City and a bunch of lawyers and accountants playing Indian. The decision to have his mens weekends in the Black Hills - after Wounded Knee I and II and a laundry list of other shit - all this tells me pretty much all I need to know about Bly right there.

I guess it's another example of the lack of white American conscientiousness. However, I'm more interested in the archetypal and cultural aspects of which this movement is only a small aspect. Earlier, ITT, i was trying to direct this thread more toward Robert Moore and Douglas Gillette's work as I think it has been noted throughout this thread that prancing around in the woods in some (now obviously extremely insensitive) pseudo-Native American fashion isn't necessarily the best manner of approach.

Incidentally, I now know the origin of your PD name...and had no clue that horrible shit like that went down as late as the 1970s....jesus christ. :sad:

Riffing a bit off the archetypal aspect of Bly's Jungian connection, I'd like to mention the four masculine archetypes presented in Robert L. Moore's and Douglas Gillette's book: King, Warrior, Magician, Lover: Rediscovering the Archetypes of the Mature Masculine (http://www.robertmoore-phd.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=product.display&product_ID=55)

From the link:

Quote

They define the four mature male archetypes - the King (the energy of just and creative ordering), the Warrior (the energy of self-disciplined, aggressive action), the Magician (the energy of initiation and transformation), and the Lover (the energy that connects men to others and the world) - as well as the four immature patterns (Divine Child, Oedipal Child, Precocious Child, and Hero).

I also found a nice illustration to describe how the immature patterns manifest in the mature male archetypes. Here that is: (http://www.masculinity-movies.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/06/kwml-model.png)

The authors, too, think that the initiation rituals present today such as military, gangs corporate structures are inadequate for a healthy masculine Individuation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Individuation). You know, if you're into that sort of thing. (Relatively).

What do you folks think of these archetypes and immature patterns? Can we use these archetypes to grow in other ways aside from making a male ritual space where old dudes recite poetry and spout fairy tales?

One place I would disagree with this is calling the coward the immature form of the masochist. Masochists are not cowards, they choose to experience pain, they put themselves in a place to have pain inflicted on them, that's sort of the opposite of cowardice. Not that some masochists are not also cowards about other things, but I don't see any correlation between the two.

Riffing a bit off the archetypal aspect of Bly's Jungian connection, I'd like to mention the four masculine archetypes presented in Robert L. Moore's and Douglas Gillette's book: King, Warrior, Magician, Lover: Rediscovering the Archetypes of the Mature Masculine (http://www.robertmoore-phd.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=product.display&product_ID=55)

From the link:

Quote

They define the four mature male archetypes - the King (the energy of just and creative ordering), the Warrior (the energy of self-disciplined, aggressive action), the Magician (the energy of initiation and transformation), and the Lover (the energy that connects men to others and the world) - as well as the four immature patterns (Divine Child, Oedipal Child, Precocious Child, and Hero).

I also found a nice illustration to describe how the immature patterns manifest in the mature male archetypes. Here that is: (http://www.masculinity-movies.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/06/kwml-model.png)

The authors, too, think that the initiation rituals present today such as military, gangs corporate structures are inadequate for a healthy masculine Individuation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Individuation). You know, if you're into that sort of thing. (Relatively).

What do you folks think of these archetypes and immature patterns? Can we use these archetypes to grow in other ways aside from making a male ritual space where old dudes recite poetry and spout fairy tales?

One place I would disagree with this is calling the coward the immature form of the masochist. Masochists are not cowards, they choose to experience pain, they put themselves in a place to have pain inflicted on them, that's sort of the opposite of cowardice. Not that some masochists are not also cowards about other things, but I don't see any correlation between the two.

I was going to go and relisten to the part of the audiobook where Moore and Gilette describe the Masochist and give you a succinct reply but Brett and Kate McKay at artofmanliness.com do a pretty good summary:

The Masochist. The Masochist is the passive shadow in the tripartite Warrior archetype, and its attributes closely parallel those of the boyhood Hero archetype’s cowardly shadow. A man possessed by the Masochist feels he is powerless. He is a push-over who has no personal boundaries and will let others walk all over him. He may hate his job or the relationship he’s in and complain about it, but instead of quitting, cutting his losses and moving on, he digs in and tries harder to be who his boss or girlfriend wants him to be and takes even more abuse. Because while he might complain about the pain, he really likes it. This is the man who enjoys being the martyr.

I think the key here is describing it as the Warrior's passive shadow side rather than thinking of it as a 'practicing masochist."

Sadly, I can think of a LOT of people I know IRL who never seem to be "happy" unless they're bitching and complaining about something.

I'll close in the spirit of the mythopoetic along with a synchronistic bend.

I'll end by describing how a story or myth has helped me draw a parallel between my youth and a passage into my manhood.

You've all seen The Avengers, right? Perhaps you've seen the most recently grossed intellectual property of the series, Iron Man?

Well I was able to check out Iron Man 2 for the first time in the past couple weeks. I've always loved Iron Man...even as a kid. There was something about his being a human who used technology to gain a super human status that really appealed to me. Even today, I work in the IT field, I've developed a penchant for programming and so on.

!!!Spoiler Alert!!!

So in Iron Man 2 Tony Stark had an ill understanding of his father. Howard Stark was always absorbed in his work, never really available to his kid, Tony. Finally, when the contents a S.H.I.E.L.D. .. uh...footlocker (?) revealed that Howard Stark's greatest contribution to the world was his legacy in the form of his son, Tony, was his "greatest achievement" was Tony finally able to cure himself of the poisonous arc reactor in his chest that was both killing him and keeping him alive. (It was an energy source connected to a magnet that was keeping shards of metal from going into his heart and killing him. Turns out that the radioactivity (?) in the arc reactor itself was poisoning his body as well, thus slowly killing him).

The turning point was when Tony used his father's legacy that he was able to discover a new element that was both abundant as well as nontoxic to his body that he was able to fulfill the Great Work of the past and transcend his predicament into the full force man he was destined to become.

In the same way, it was when I was able to tell my father that it was up to us to fulfill our family legacy that our inner poison could be released. From a story point of view, it wasn't until we were able to frame our history as a 'necessary course of action' that we were able to rise above the guilt and shame that has plagued us and framed our relationship for years.

In fact, it has thus helped make clearer my already formulated Master Plan, which includes my own children as an integral part.

When Tony Stark first inserted the new element into his chest, replacing the old technology, his words were, "IT TASTES LIKE METAL .... AND COCONUT!" The experience was powerful and orgasmic.

After I was able to reconcile this healing process, I can't even begin to tell you how much power is at my disposal. There really is something to this process...we don't need drums or rituals...but what's required is honesty and reflection. A man ... hell... an adult, to me, seems to be nothing more than a person with purpose and integrity. Someone who isn't afraid to take the past and redeem the frailties of one's predecessors. A person who takes responsibility for the future of his or her legacy with love and strength. An Iron John or Jane whose exterior is of strength and fierceness and interior of love and growth.

Ah ah... that's a different sort of myth than I was referencing. I meant mythic stories (ala Joseph Campbell) that provide a model for people as they grow in their own experience of life. Many traditional societies had Hero stories, about some guy that is the everyman/fool/child who goes on a life changing experience, becoming the hero. In each individuals life, they take that same path, from the birth/child/fool position through taking the adventure that leads to being a grown/contributing member of society.

There are some stories that sorta cover this, Star Wars, obviously and also Avatar The Last Airbender as a more recent example... but these stories aren't a society wide tool, they're attempts by modern storytellers to recapture the old mythic concept. They still cling to the most classic model and don't really cover the modern cultural experience well enough IMO.

It's more of a trope, because it appears in a fuck-wad of stories, but an example of this sort of myth (wrong as it may be) is what I call the "Hugh Grant".

It goes like this: Handsome, well-to-do, carefree bachelor. Living a free and breezy lifestyle. Thinking he's got it all figured out. Then he meets some wholly insufferable woman. The one that doesn't fall for his boyish charm and see's right through him. Then of course he's hooked, but it fucks up his whole worldview and drives him insane, until he finally "grows-up" and realizes that the life he had was really empty, shallow and meaningless, and he needs to man up for the love of a good woman...or something to that effect.

It's a wholly fuct version of the heroic journey, but all the elements are there...and it's pretty reflective of a prominent cultural attitude.

Ah ah... that's a different sort of myth than I was referencing. I meant mythic stories (ala Joseph Campbell) that provide a model for people as they grow in their own experience of life. Many traditional societies had Hero stories, about some guy that is the everyman/fool/child who goes on a life changing experience, becoming the hero. In each individuals life, they take that same path, from the birth/child/fool position through taking the adventure that leads to being a grown/contributing member of society.

There are some stories that sorta cover this, Star Wars, obviously and also Avatar The Last Airbender as a more recent example... but these stories aren't a society wide tool, they're attempts by modern storytellers to recapture the old mythic concept. They still cling to the most classic model and don't really cover the modern cultural experience well enough IMO.

It's more of a trope, because it appears in a fuck-wad of stories, but an example of this sort of myth (wrong as it may be) is what I call the "Hugh Grant".

It goes like this: Handsome, well-to-do, carefree bachelor. Living a free and breezy lifestyle. Thinking he's got it all figured out. Then he meets some wholly insufferable woman. The one that doesn't fall for his boyish charm and see's right through him. Then of course he's hooked, but it fucks up his whole worldview and drives him insane, until he finally "grows-up" and realizes that the life he had was really empty, shallow and meaningless, and he needs to man up for the love of a good woman...or something to that effect.

It's a wholly fuct version of the heroic journey, but all the elements are there...and it's pretty reflective of a prominent cultural attitude.

Nome off the top of my head. Actually mentioning Hugh Grant I thought of 2 Weeks notice, and Bullocks character does a similar thing which I think is typical of the female equivalent; instead of bein silly and smug she's hardworkin, determined and too serious, until she learns to lighten up. Not sure. Will think on it.

Edit: OK. I have this (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/ILoveYouBecauseICantControlYou) and this (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/LadykillerInLove).

Nome off the top of my head. Actually mentioning Hugh Grant I thought of 2 Weeks notice, and Bullocks character does a similar thing which I think is typical of the female equivalent; instead of bein silly and smug she's hardworkin, determined and too serious, until she learns to lighten up. Not sure. Will think on it.

Edit: OK. I have this (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/ILoveYouBecauseICantControlYou) and this (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/LadykillerInLove).

Actually they both look pretty fucked up.

The first one looks like a variation of "smart girls get the guy because they withhold sex - the ones who don't are just stupid whores and they don't mean anything".

The second one implies that polyamorous people can't have REAL feelings.

is there a name for this trope on TV Tropes at all? If you are refererring to particular films, can you list them so I can figure out the common trope?

Although it is male-focused, it's still a pretty positive (from a feminist viewpoint) trope of maturation.

"About A Boy" was the first time I put my finger on it, which is why I named it "The Hugh Grant". I know I've seen him in that scenario more than once. "Failure to Launch" is another right off the top of my head. Sometimes it's a case of the dude needing to grow up and settle down, other time, like in "Failure to Launch" they need to grow up and get over it...but always...the implication is "maturity" = "monogamy". That gets under my skin a shit load. My process of maturation only came when I said that I don't really need to have another half to be whole (minus the holes, of course). But that's a trope you'll see applied to women a lot, and it's a very positive one for a lot of people, but I have never, not once, seen it applied to men.

How about, single, handsome, carefree dude gets a ton of shit from all his friends and family and society and stupid fucking Hugh Grant movies and he starts to cave so he "guesses it's time to grow up" and meets someone he reasonably thinks he can live that sort of life with and they fall in love and go through the motions, but he has to find the strength to admit that they want wholly different things out of life, so he goes nuts wrestling with the decision but learns to let go...despite how heart-breaking it is for him? That model is MIA...and it kind of fucking annoys me.

I think, using the stuff Burns added, it's a good example of a trope to do with the lovers journey, from 'Addicted Lover' to 'Lover in their fullness'.

I'm not sure how you ended up with those interpretations; the first isn't about dating strategy, it's about falling for someone because they don't immediately fall for you like everyone else does; like Mr Darcy in P&P, or the female example is Emma and Mr Knightly in Austin's Emma. No sex there.

Also the second concerns the real feelings of people who generally aren't poli, so I'm really not sure where that interpretation came from.

I think, using the stuff Burns added, it's a good example of a trope to do with the lovers journey, from 'Addicted Lover' to 'Lover in their fullness'.

I'm not sure how you ended up with those interpretations; the first isn't about dating strategy, it's about falling for someone because they don't immediately fall for you like everyone else does; like Mr Darcy in P&P, or the female example is Emma and Mr Knightly in Austin's Emma. No sex there.

Also the second concerns the real feelings of people who generally aren't poli, so I'm really not sure where that interpretation came from.

IMO the problem is the sheer NUMBER of films like that, like "this it it, this is the NORM".

Something else, Austen's specialty was having some girl go through a series of amusing misunderstandings and then get married, the end. She was a master at that but not a person to read for character depth, or understanding what drives people or any of that. Her characters don't even seem to feel much, it's more about the plot. I wouldn't read Austen expecting insights about men. In her books they're either some prize to be won in the end, or some problem to be avoided, nothing more.

I think, using the stuff Burns added, it's a good example of a trope to do with the lovers journey, from 'Addicted Lover' to 'Lover in their fullness'.

I'm not sure how you ended up with those interpretations; the first isn't about dating strategy, it's about falling for someone because they don't immediately fall for you like everyone else does; like Mr Darcy in P&P, or the female example is Emma and Mr Knightly in Austin's Emma. No sex there.

Also the second concerns the real feelings of people who generally aren't poli, so I'm really not sure where that interpretation came from.

IMO the problem is the sheer NUMBER of films like that, like "this it it, this is the NORM."

Exactly. Also, it's the complete lack of a counter-example. If you see a bachelor "of a certain age" represented he's either a total man-child or a tragic broken down wrestler/country-singer/author with a severe personality disorder. He's never just a dude who's chosen that for himself.

I think Arthur is a great example of a movie to tie in the growing up from a boy to a man trope with the romance being part of the catalyst for the change. Hell, in the remake starring Russell Brand he drives the friggin batmobile.

Which leads us to Manchild (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/Manchild). This seems like the typical example that Bly describes.

From the trope:

Quote from: http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/Manchild

The Man Child, a term invented by William Faulkner, is usually an adult who possesses a very childlike or childish demeanor. He's emotionally both simple and fragile; he prefers (although does not always need) to have a parent figure to look after him. He usually isn't very worldly and is typically pretty gullible. The Man Child's interests are usually what most people consider to be immature or childish, even in comparison to actual children.

In the vast majority of cases, the character is Always Male.

In addition to the remake version:

Quote from: http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Film/Arthur

Well Done Son Guy: Nearly all of Arthur's emotional troubles stem from his awful mother (he calls her by her first name, Vivianne) and the fact his perfectly healthy father died suddenly at the age of 45, when Arthur was 6. By the end of the film, he openly considers his nanny Hobson to be his real mother.

I think the shear number of these films might be indicative of a situation not unlike the quote above. Although I think Bly would be wholly disagree with the fact that Hobson should have been a female. In the original Hobson WAS a male.

I wonder if the fact that in the remake Hobson's role being taken by a rather more masculine woman is a closer example of the norm of today. I, however, don't doubt that a woman can take on that role of teaching a boy to be a man (I disagree with Bly on that note), at the same time, I can't think of any examples off the top of my head.

Burns, I was thinking about that trangle, and thinking it could represent any number of specific archtypes, and could provide a personal goal.

So an Atheist triangle might be used to guide oneself into the Atheist in their fullness, avoiding becoming a (weak self) Persecuted Nihilist or a (overbearing self) Dogmatic Fundamentalist.

A graphic designer might seek to realise the self in fullness vs The Immitator The Abstractor

Discordian provides a good model in that Discordian in fullness means what you want it to.

Just some thoughts.

That's an interesting idea...why stop at the male archetype? Sounds like it might be a useful model for concretizing some abstractions in terms of others. I can see it also helping out with therapeutic facilitating. I think I'll give this some more thought--thanks.

Well, it doesn't, but it does show the Lo5 in full effect. One point is data, two points is a relationship, three points is a pattern.

Heh--yes. One of the things I just read about the ARC triangle is that all points are interdependent on all others--that each point needs the other two and that the other two needs the other single point. Even examining these ideas in that light might make for another interesting introspection. You know, rather than seeing the bottom two points as a spectrum and the top point an place of transcending the bottom ones. Thanks, LMNO

I was revisiting Robert Moore's ideas tonight and I found that he regarded Robert Bly's retreats as a way of getting men in touch with their Lover archetype. The King, Warrior and Magician, however, would be accessed in different ways.

I want to go more into this...maybe i should start a thread specifically for it.. At any rate I'd like to explore these archetypes individually and possibly get some feedback on how any of you regard these archetypes. I'll do this when I haven't driven for four and a half hours.

See, even though Moore's intent was to understand these as male psyche archetypes, they're also present in the female psyche. He mentions the Queen, the Warrior Woman, and how they're equally important. The workshop i listened to tonight was in 1989 and at one point mentions how he believes girls should begin martial arts early in life to develop the warrior aspect in women that is often repressed in a Patriarchal society. He mentioned how he sometimes gets flack for it and also has some very fair and insightful views on feminism that I'll try to find more about.

Granted Jungians tend to be a bit strange sometimes, this guy seems pretty down to earth.

It seems obvious to me that this is a concept that can bear exploration. I'm not sure that context is very amenable to exploration, though; it might have too much baggage to lend itself to critical and constructive examination.

That's the old existential conundrum, isn't it?How to live your life when no one tells you what to do and everything seems too complicated.

Life in the past was very difficult but, in retrospect, very simple. Life now is a lot easier, but more complex.I can deal with complexity, so obviously I prefer my modern, easy, complex life. So do most of you.I can see why some people might feel differently, though.

What appeals to me about it is that it's a model for maturity. I look at it as a model that I can discard when it's not working. If, say, I apply it to my kids, right now i can see my son has a lot of the Magician/Lover aspects and my daughter has a lot of the Magician/Warrior. Maybe it might be an indicator to get my son into martial arts and spend some more time being mindful with my daughter.

This is just off the cuff, but I don't really intend to take it terribly seriously, either.

Burns and I were just talking about how to embrace masculinity without the toxic parts. He kindly linked me to the post ITT about the mature masculine archetypes (https://www.principiadiscordia.com/forum/index.php/topic,32533.msg1178971.html#msg1178971), which I found very interesting.